MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990125233 · doi:10.3934/dcds.2011.29.193

Dynamics and abstract computability: Computing invariant measures

2010· article· en· W1990125233 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable analysisComputabilityComputable numberInvariant measureComputable functionInvariant (physics)Measure (data warehouse)MathematicsTransfer operatorMetric spaceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the question of computing invariant measures from an abstractpoint of view. Here, computing a measure means finding an algorithm which canoutput descriptions of the measure up to any precision. We work in a general framework (computable metric spaces) where this problem can be posed precisely. We will find invariant measures as fixed points of the transfer operator. In this case, a general result ensures the computability of isolated fixed points of a computable map. We give general conditions under which the transfer operator is computable on a suitable set. This implies the computability of many 'regular enough' invariant measures and among them many physical measures. On the other hand, not all computable dynamical systems have a computable invariant measure. We exhibit two examples of computable dynamics, one having a physical measure which is not computable and one for which no invariant measure is computable, showing some subtlety in this kind of problems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it